Subject: [lmap] IPFIX vs LMAP

From: Marc Linsner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 12:42:51 -0500

Can someone familiar with IPFIX contrast, in a few sentences, the
differences between it and LMAP?

Can IPFIX be made tweaked to fulfill the LMAP requirements?

I'm asking as I'm not familiar with IPFIX and know I'll miss something
trying to read that architecture.

Thanks,

-Marc-

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 19:12:18 +0100

> trying to read that architecture.

My understanding is that LMAP is not a protocol.

LMAP may make use of say existing protocols such as IPFIX for shipping
measurement results and it may make use of other existing protocols to
lets say configure test schedules.

That said, the LMAP effort may lead to extension of existing protocols
(e.g. new LMAP specific IPFIX information elements, new LMAP specific
data models, new IPPM metrics, ...). It is not clear at this point in
time that LMAP needs to spin its own protocol.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: "Jiankang YAO" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 11:45:11 +0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[email-masked]>
To: "Marc Linsner" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 2:12 AM
Subject: Re: [lmap] IPFIX vs LMAP

> lets say configure test schedules.

my understanding is that LMAP may use some existing protocols,but will create its own stuff.
It is good to create the protocol for LMAP.

Jiankang Yao

> _______________________________________________
> lmap mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap

---

From: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 08:00:14 +0100

Hi, Mark, all,

IPFIX is a push-based data export protocol for network-relevant data (sampled packets with PSAMP, flows, flow aggregates, etc.). It defines a set of Information Elements (IEs) (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix) mainly applicable to layers 2 through 4, and a binary data export protocol in which record types are defined through templates (vectors of these IEs). 

As for IPFIX in LMAP, for any arrangement in which an MA is exporting data on demand to a collector, and that data is semantically relatively flat (think tables, not arbitrary trees), it's certainly applicable as a reporting protocol. When looking at the architecture in RFC5470 in LMAP terms, the Metering Process and the Exporting Process are the MA, and the Collecting Process is the collector.

RFC6728 defines a configuration data model for IPFIX entities using NETCONF; I'm not a NETCONF expert though, so it's not clear to me how easily this could be adapted into a controller-MA protocol for LMAP.

There are as yet no bindings between IPFIX and the IPPM metrics, though we expect IEs to be defined for common IPPM metrics within IPPM, perhaps based on one of the draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry drafts. (Note that there are already some non-IPPM performance metrics in the registry: IEs 385-387 use the RFC3550 definition of jitter, instead of IPPM delay variation.)

Best regards,

Brian

On Jan 30, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Marc Linsner <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Can someone familiar with IPFIX contrast, in a few sentences, the differences between it and LMAP?
> 
> I'm asking as I'm not familiar with IPFIX and know I'll miss something trying to read that architecture.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Marc-

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 11:16:09 +0000

> It is good to create the protocol for LMAP.
Why?
What is specific to your problem that requires a new protocol?

Disclaimer: I'm not up to date with the mailing list and drafts, so 
maybe I missed it.

Regards, Benoit

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:04:57 +0100

Hi Benoit,

Let me take a stab to this.

One of the goals of LMAP is to allow a controller (i.e. piece of code 
that is in charge of controlling which and when some measurement are 
done by measurement agents distributed all over the place) to request a 
specific measurement agent to perform a specific test, at a specific 
time, with these specific input parameters.

In order to do that, we can re use a protocol to transport this 
information (e.g. http) but we need to define a data format that will 
allow to say, execute test number 5 with the following parameters, and 
the following time, with the following schedulling. AFAICT, we dont have 
such data format to express this. Now, this is very specific to the 
test, so the question is whether is there a data format that is generic 
enough to support all the relevant tests and that still defines 
something. I (we) belive the answer is yes.

Similarly, another goal of LMAP would be to define the data format to 
allow the measurement agent to report the results of the tests executed 
to a "collector". This is what i understand is more similar to IPFIX, 
but yet again, the question is whether the generic data format needed to 
report arbitrary tests is currnelty available.

The final goal is to buy a CPE out of the box, run a controller out of 
hte box and that the standard controller can request the CPE to run test 
numer 5 with input parameter a,b and c at time X.

I hope this makes sense and clarifies something.

Regards, marcelo

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:48:21 +0000

Hi Marcelo, 

So can't LMAP use YANG to specify the data format that will define and trigger execution of the tests, and IPFIX to report the results of the tests? 

We are already facing a multiplication of protocols from the IETF and other SDOs, and this is not a good thing - not for operators, not for vendors. Reusing existing protocols and writing data models in already existing data modeling languages should be preferred, I believe. 

Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> marcelo bagnulo braun
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 4:05 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> >>>> I'm asking as I'm not familiar with IPFIX and know I'll miss
> >>>> something trying to read that architecture.
> >>> LMAP may make use of say existing protocols such as IPFIX for
> >>> shipping measurement results and it may make use of other existing
> >>> protocols to lets say configure test schedules.
> >>>
> >>> That said, the LMAP effort may lead to extension of existing
> >>> protocols (e.g. new LMAP specific IPFIX information elements, new
> >>> LMAP specific data models, new IPPM metrics, ...). It is not clear
> >>> at this point in time that LMAP needs to spin its own protocol.
> >>>
> >>> /js
> >>>
> >>> --